8 ms·

University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change

50 points by rblion 7y ago

dragontamer 7y ago
Seems to come down to he-said / she-said? > “There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Crockford’s adjunct appointment was not renewed for ‘telling school kids politically incorrect facts about polar bears,’” said Ms. Parkin. “The University of Victoria, in both word and deed, supports academic freedom and free debate on academic issues.” vs > Ms. Crockford accused officials at the Canadian university of bowing to “outside pressure,” the result of her research showing that polar bear populations are stable and even thriving, not plummeting as a result of shrinking Arctic sea ice, defying claims of the climate change movement. --------- I guess I was hoping for a better argument given the headline? Is there a strong basis for cause-effect here? It doesn't seem like Ms. Crockford was a tenured professor either. Her former position was as an "adjunct professor". I admit that I'm ignorant to college-politics, but hopefully someone can fill me in on some of these facts.
- dlemire 7y ago
  At least in my experience with Canadian institutions, an adjunct professorship is largely an honorary title. It is typically unpaid. You can supervise graduate students and apply for some grants, but that is about it. Also it is not meant to be permanent... You receive it for a fixed duration (say 3 years) and have to renew it. Renewal may be based on several factors but certainly may include how well you work with people from the school in question. I don't know anything about the case being discussed here, but my expectation is that the non-renewal of an adjunct status cannot be compared with getting fired as a tenure or tenure-track professor. Disclosure: I own her book.
ycjim 7y ago
Seriously? Washington Times has mixed factual reporting, not reliable: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
- protomyth 7y ago
  And I am to trust a site called Media Bias / Fact Check website because?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That site isn't much to write home about. That said, the Washington Times' bias issues aren't a secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance,_content_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political...
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Media Bias / Fact Check That website is garbage, it's just some amateurs slapping ratings on things. It should not be treated as authoritative in any way.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    Washington Times is well known to be far-right. With that being said, I'm confident that a good discussion would prove the worthiness of the article one way or the other.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Because they list and link to the reasoning behind their opinion. You can read the sources and any extra information and form your own. This is not simply "we think it's bad, trust us".
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Honestly, trust this is bad because we said so is not a logical response. At least hot link to the opinion of why.
      - happytoexplain 7y ago
        The link seems to say more than "this is bad because we said so".
Vxss 7y ago
Just so we're clear, this is a Washington Times article. It must be a reflection of a complete shift of internet culture rightwards that this rag has been upvoted here significantly.
- UncleOxidant 7y ago
  This is a good argument for having the ability to downvote things here. Not sure why we can only upvote.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    flagging
  - wglb 7y ago
    You can downvote comments once your karma reaches a threshold. Stories can't be downvoted, but they can be flagged.
- MiroF 7y ago
  "complete shift of internet culture rightwards" It's always been here I feel. It's just now, many of the traditional conservative institutions (like Washington Times) are waking up to it.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Is it impossible to discuss the merit of an article without stating "This is too far right"????
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    For some, yes. One has to have the cognitive ability to separate the messenger from the content.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      The messenger is part of the content. If Alex Jones screams some anti-liberal hate, I can rationally make some assumptions about the quality of his message before even committing time and energy to vetting his statements. This is normal, and vetting all statements would be impossible. This is a useful filter, if applied prudently.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ohazi 7y ago
Flagged. The Washington Times is not a reputable source. If people want to discuss this, please replace the article with one that isn't a dumpster fire of deliberately misleading information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford She was paid by a conservative think tank for years and didn't disclose her conflict of interest.
- war1025 7y ago
  Would people consider it a conflict of interest if someone was paid by a liberal think tank for years and published research in line with that viewpoint? The question should be weather the research is replicable, not who funded it.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    > Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. Keep in mind that peer review is the lowest bar for academic quality. It's barely table stakes.
    - war1025 7y ago
      Don't believe I said anything regarding peer review.
      - gremlinsinc 7y ago
        Peer review usually means people tried to replicate it. Lack thereof usually means most reputable scientists won't even give it the light of day because it's not based in reality.
        masonic 7y ago
        Replication is not usually a role for the peer review process, hence the "replication crisis" of the past decade.
Hongwei 7y ago
Canadian universities have had some questionable incidents around free speech [1]. So I wondered as I was reading this if this is, as the prof says, "cancel culture." However there's this ... "Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration, which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial." Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month" [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford
anigbrowl 7y ago
OP, I feel you could find a less biased source to cover this story for the same reason I don't post outrage articles from left-leaning websites despite my being outrageously lefty.
danShumway 7y ago
I'm seeing some warning signs in this article when I dig into the sources: > University of Victoria economics professor Cornelis van Kooten warned of the threat to free speech on campus. “I think the climate change movement has done extreme harm to academic freedom,” he said, and the movement isn’t alone. Why are we interviewing economics professors about suppression in the Climate science? Then we get to Judith Curry[0]: > Her Polar Bear Science blog came under fire in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann, decrying the influence of “denier blogs,” which Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry blasted as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.” On whom Wikipedia says: > In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’”[1] It's very hard for me to find a source here in support of her that isn't spending a lot of time using coded language for, "the establishment is corrupt, you can't trust mainstream scientists, you can only trust this fringe group and the reason no one agrees with us is because they hate us, not because we're wrong." It reminds me a lot of when I was growing up in a Creationist community, and I'd hear regular reports about the 'brave' scientists that would get fired because they rejected fossil record evidence. I'm not going to outright say bias doesn't exist in climate science, but if a publication like the Washing Times wants to claim it does, I'd expect to see much more compelling evidence than this article provides. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
aussieguy1234 7y ago
For context in where this is coming from: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
godelzilla 7y ago
Fake News. Washington Times specialty.
rblion 7y ago
I posted this just to see what people would say. I'm working on a project in media and this thread is good research, believe it or not.
rinchik 7y ago
I'm confused by the comments. Is it fake new because WT is the source, or is it fake news because we have a legitimate source (e.g. University's or professor's statements) that actually confirms that it's fake? I'm not, personally, familiar with WT but seems there are a lot of jumping to conclusions happening here. I don't wanna say that EVERYONE is bias, just curios about what really happened.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  I believe it's the source that is the issue. It's "fake news" in that the source is extremely biased, and therefore untrustworthy. Not that we know the content is strictly composed of lies.
  - rinchik 7y ago
    But.. every news outlet is bias and "propagandist", NYT has A LOT of eye rolling, leftist extremism fueling articles, WP as well, even New Yorker is super bias (New Yorker is more fun to read though..) but all of the above also have gems. I still glance through those as it is important for getting a full picture and not just a picture of one of the political bubbles.
lindayohe 7y ago
You Can Get Most Effective & Quality Exam Dumps in PDF Form 2 At Certsbuzz You’ll find the Complete Range of Updated and Authentic Preparation material for Actual Exams Conducted by Many Vendors. You will be Confident to Attempt Any Exam If You Have All the Relevant Study Material. Prepare well From The Latest Study Material in Just a Few Hours and Succeed in Your Dream Certificate https://www.certsbuzz.com/salesforce-questions-bank https://www.certsbuzz.com/salesforce-questions-bank
stillbourne 7y ago
Susan Crockford's research is a crock, read up on why here: https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford

50 points by rblion 7y ago

Seems to come down to he-said / she-said? > “There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Crockford’s adjunct appointment was not renewed for ‘telling school kids politically incorrect facts about polar bears,’” said Ms. Parkin. “The University of Victoria, in both word and deed, supports academic freedom and free debate on academic issues.” vs > Ms. Crockford accused officials at the Canadian university of bowing to “outside pressure,” the result of her research showing that polar bear populations are stable and even thriving, not plummeting as a result of shrinking Arctic sea ice, defying claims of the climate change movement. --------- I guess I was hoping for a better argument given the headline? Is there a strong basis for cause-effect here? It doesn't seem like Ms. Crockford was a tenured professor either. Her former position was as an "adjunct professor". I admit that I'm ignorant to college-politics, but hopefully someone can fill me in on some of these facts.

dlemire 7y ago
At least in my experience with Canadian institutions, an adjunct professorship is largely an honorary title. It is typically unpaid. You can supervise graduate students and apply for some grants, but that is about it. Also it is not meant to be permanent... You receive it for a fixed duration (say 3 years) and have to renew it. Renewal may be based on several factors but certainly may include how well you work with people from the school in question. I don't know anything about the case being discussed here, but my expectation is that the non-renewal of an adjunct status cannot be compared with getting fired as a tenure or tenure-track professor. Disclosure: I own her book.

ycjim 7y ago

Seriously? Washington Times has mixed factual reporting, not reliable: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

protomyth 7y ago
And I am to trust a site called Media Bias / Fact Check website because?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  That site isn't much to write home about. That said, the Washington Times' bias issues aren't a secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance,_content_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political...
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Media Bias / Fact Check That website is garbage, it's just some amateurs slapping ratings on things. It should not be treated as authoritative in any way.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  Washington Times is well known to be far-right. With that being said, I'm confident that a good discussion would prove the worthiness of the article one way or the other.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Because they list and link to the reasoning behind their opinion. You can read the sources and any extra information and form your own. This is not simply "we think it's bad, trust us".
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Honestly, trust this is bad because we said so is not a logical response. At least hot link to the opinion of why.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      The link seems to say more than "this is bad because we said so".

Vxss 7y ago

Just so we're clear, this is a Washington Times article. It must be a reflection of a complete shift of internet culture rightwards that this rag has been upvoted here significantly.

UncleOxidant 7y ago
This is a good argument for having the ability to downvote things here. Not sure why we can only upvote.
- MiroF 7y ago
  flagging
- wglb 7y ago
  You can downvote comments once your karma reaches a threshold. Stories can't be downvoted, but they can be flagged.
MiroF 7y ago
"complete shift of internet culture rightwards" It's always been here I feel. It's just now, many of the traditional conservative institutions (like Washington Times) are waking up to it.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
Is it impossible to discuss the merit of an article without stating "This is too far right"????
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  For some, yes. One has to have the cognitive ability to separate the messenger from the content.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    The messenger is part of the content. If Alex Jones screams some anti-liberal hate, I can rationally make some assumptions about the quality of his message before even committing time and energy to vetting his statements. This is normal, and vetting all statements would be impossible. This is a useful filter, if applied prudently.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ohazi 7y ago

Flagged. The Washington Times is not a reputable source. If people want to discuss this, please replace the article with one that isn't a dumpster fire of deliberately misleading information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford She was paid by a conservative think tank for years and didn't disclose her conflict of interest.

war1025 7y ago
Would people consider it a conflict of interest if someone was paid by a liberal think tank for years and published research in line with that viewpoint? The question should be weather the research is replicable, not who funded it.
- ohazi 7y ago
  > Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. Keep in mind that peer review is the lowest bar for academic quality. It's barely table stakes.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Don't believe I said anything regarding peer review.
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago
      Peer review usually means people tried to replicate it. Lack thereof usually means most reputable scientists won't even give it the light of day because it's not based in reality.
      - masonic 7y ago
        Replication is not usually a role for the peer review process, hence the "replication crisis" of the past decade.

Hongwei 7y ago

Canadian universities have had some questionable incidents around free speech [1]. So I wondered as I was reading this if this is, as the prof says, "cancel culture." However there's this ... "Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration, which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial." Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month" [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford

anigbrowl 7y ago

OP, I feel you could find a less biased source to cover this story for the same reason I don't post outrage articles from left-leaning websites despite my being outrageously lefty.

danShumway 7y ago

I'm seeing some warning signs in this article when I dig into the sources: > University of Victoria economics professor Cornelis van Kooten warned of the threat to free speech on campus. “I think the climate change movement has done extreme harm to academic freedom,” he said, and the movement isn’t alone. Why are we interviewing economics professors about suppression in the Climate science? Then we get to Judith Curry[0]: > Her Polar Bear Science blog came under fire in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann, decrying the influence of “denier blogs,” which Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry blasted as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.” On whom Wikipedia says: > In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’”[1] It's very hard for me to find a source here in support of her that isn't spending a lot of time using coded language for, "the establishment is corrupt, you can't trust mainstream scientists, you can only trust this fringe group and the reason no one agrees with us is because they hate us, not because we're wrong." It reminds me a lot of when I was growing up in a Creationist community, and I'd hear regular reports about the 'brave' scientists that would get fired because they rejected fossil record evidence. I'm not going to outright say bias doesn't exist in climate science, but if a publication like the Washing Times wants to claim it does, I'd expect to see much more compelling evidence than this article provides. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

aussieguy1234 7y ago

For context in where this is coming from: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

godelzilla 7y ago

Fake News. Washington Times specialty.

rblion 7y ago

I posted this just to see what people would say. I'm working on a project in media and this thread is good research, believe it or not.

rinchik 7y ago

I'm confused by the comments. Is it fake new because WT is the source, or is it fake news because we have a legitimate source (e.g. University's or professor's statements) that actually confirms that it's fake? I'm not, personally, familiar with WT but seems there are a lot of jumping to conclusions happening here. I don't wanna say that EVERYONE is bias, just curios about what really happened.

happytoexplain 7y ago
I believe it's the source that is the issue. It's "fake news" in that the source is extremely biased, and therefore untrustworthy. Not that we know the content is strictly composed of lies.
- rinchik 7y ago
  But.. every news outlet is bias and "propagandist", NYT has A LOT of eye rolling, leftist extremism fueling articles, WP as well, even New Yorker is super bias (New Yorker is more fun to read though..) but all of the above also have gems. I still glance through those as it is important for getting a full picture and not just a picture of one of the political bubbles.

lindayohe 7y ago

You Can Get Most Effective & Quality Exam Dumps in PDF Form 2 At Certsbuzz You’ll find the Complete Range of Updated and Authentic Preparation material for Actual Exams Conducted by Many Vendors. You will be Confident to Attempt Any Exam If You Have All the Relevant Study Material. Prepare well From The Latest Study Material in Just a Few Hours and Succeed in Your Dream Certificate https://www.certsbuzz.com/salesforce-questions-bank https://www.certsbuzz.com/salesforce-questions-bank

stillbourne 7y ago

Susan Crockford's research is a crock, read up on why here: https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford